W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > March 2014

Re: Scope: data vs. metadata vs ontologies

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 18:39:41 +0100
Message-ID: <531A045D.6040504@few.vu.nl>
To: Giancarlo Guizzardi <gguizzardi@gmail.com>
CC: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
On 3/7/14 4:48 PM, Giancarlo Guizzardi wrote:
> I trust the intended meaning is conveyed now.

Yes!

Antoine

On 3/7/14 4:48 PM, Giancarlo Guizzardi wrote:
> Hi,
>
>     If there's a case proposed for it, the quality of the vocabularies (ontologies, thesauri, etc) may be on the menu, why not.
>
>
> Good. My point is that it is hard to talk about quality of data without
> talking about the quality of the things which must be used to define
> what this data mean.
>
>
>     But please don't use the bare word 'meta-data' for it! This word has a different meaning in wider communities, where it roughly mean what you'd call basic data, describing something (that is, pretty much any RDF data) [1]. We shouldn't introduce more confusion. Talking about vocabularies will already bring us enough headaches!
>
>
> Sure. I was speaking very loosely. I just wanted to stress the importance
> of also considering information that refers to the semantics of data
> (one of the key aspects of data quality).
>
> Your concern to avoid confusion is of course important.
> I meant indeed primarily what you could call "structural metadata".
> (although, technically speaking, ontologies are not really "data", structural or not).
>
> I trust the intended meaning is conveyed now.
>
> best,
> Giancarlo
>
>     Best,
>     Antoine
>
>
>     On 3/7/14 3:47 PM, Giancarlo Guizzardi wrote:> Dear all,
>
>
>         I would like to raise a point of discussion that
>         will certainly impact the kind of contributions we
>         can make to the use cases catalog but also to
>         the final deliverables.
>
>         Up to now, we have focused our discussion on data in the more traditional sense of the word.
>         This is of course understandable. However, as well all know, data per se is devoid of
>         meaning and one of the most fundamental aspects of data quality is data semantics.
>         So, since the meta-data is also data (and I am using the word meta-data
>         in a general sense to include vocabularies, ontologies, etc...),
>         my question to the group is: Is the group also interested in the quality of meta-data?
>         If so,  this can most certainly have an impact on the concepts
>         to be contemplated in the data quality vocabulary.
>
>         best regards,
>         Giancarlo
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 7 March 2014 17:40:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:24:12 UTC